Talk:Star Trek (Whitman)
New "chart" listing of issues So, I have a couple of major issues with the chart that's now being used to list the issues. Sure, it's pretty and all, gives loads of information, etc, etc... But suddenly, when you skim over it, there are issues that appear to be missing because they are reprints. It's missing the date of said reprint, and so forth. Now, one issue with just simply adding those in, is that when you try to come up with a clever and intuitive way of showing that they're reprints, not so easy without suddenly blowing things wide open. Also, it's hell to maintain if changes need to be made, a column added, etc. Just a few thoughts... -- Sulfur 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :Pretty = hell? :-) I intentionally integrated the reprint issues to streamline the chart. To me, if we have every issue listed, it looks like there were more stories than there actually were. Also, italics aren't effective enough (even with the note) to distinguish from the regular stories, especially #14. I think it's better to have, for example: : :I'm not sure how maintaining the chart is an issue; once the content is posted, it doesn't seem likely to change without a time machine. As for Tim and the "Issues" heading, apologies. My brain was melting (even more) after putting that chart together! :-) -- Connor Cabal 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :: (my computer's acting slow and I'm mad at edit conflicts, so I won't change my wording, addressed to Sulfur) :: Well, you seemed to have added those in, itali-style. I would suggest unlinking reprinted comics (on their reprint) and maybe adding a parenthetical "(reprint)" tag to the title. People will be able to see that it is a reprinted story. :: The chart is a good way of keeping the presented information uniform. If there's not enough information to complete a hypothetical new column for all issues, then maybe the column shouldn't be added. Or it would be a good indicator for others to get the information. :: Here's some possibilities: :: :: Just another idea. It doesn't settle the aesthetics, however.--Tim Thomason 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :I like Tim's second suggestion. moving the pubdate column over would allow uniformity without repeating creator info. : :-- Connor Cabal 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC) And see? This is where it all gets difficult to maintain, if columns want to be moved. Maybe someday it'll be decided to put in the covers of all of the issues, etc. Personally, I feel that all of the comics pages and novels pages should look consistent and have the same stylings. I'm not sure that maintaining charts/tables on those pages is necessarily a good idea. -- Sulfur 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) :Maintain and maintain! What is maintain? Do the charts require regular maintainance? So we move a column over. Is that such a big job, or am I missing something? As far as adding covers, I think that's a great idea, but others might see it as gaudy or cluttered. -- Connor Cabal 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) We find out some more of the artist details. We change something in there. We move columns around. That's maintenance. And yes. The covers would be gaudy. And, oh, if we make all of the comic series and novel series look the same, it means that they all have charts, and shitloads of new novels come out every year. Oh, and there are new comics coming out all the time too. And updating them each time a book comes out, that's more maintenance that is going to suck. -- Sulfur 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) writers, artists... * There are many differences between first page Star Trek (whitman) and comics articles, by example #50 - ST(whitman): George Kashdan is writer - on article: Arnold drake is writer, but george Kashdan is writer in infobox which is correct ? C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 03:47, March 24, 2015 (UTC) :I suspect that the article versions are correct, but I'll hunt things down and verify before making corrections. -- sulfur (talk) 10:07, March 24, 2015 (UTC) Ok, thank you ! C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 21:13, April 4, 2015 (UTC)